M3 junction 1 - 2

[Chris5156]

Wider benefits to the thousands of residents within that part of Surrey would surely make any scheme worthwhile - it would open up a real link for Shepperton, Walton and Weybridge and drive local economic growth whilst providing a measure to help relieve the M25 J11.

It might be useful to provide a new access point for those towns, but unless the junction was going to serve significant amounts of new housing or commercial developments it won't happen.

I'd also ask whether the problem with M25 J11 is one that will be fixed by another junction elsewhere. IME the worst problem is not the traffic entering or leaving there, but the amount of traffic staying on the M25, which can't fit through the three-lane section under the roundabout without queuing on the approaches for most of the day. A new junction on the M3 won't fix that.

I think you've mixed your junctions up - that's the A3 junction. The M3 junction is a turbine.

Are you sure? M25 J11 is the A320 at Chertsey, not the A3 or M3.

[Micro The Maniac]

I have been looking around this section of the M3 for a bit now and seeing as its rather quiet and with spare capacity, could it not be used to relieve Junction 11 (M25) by creating a junction at Laleham Rd B376 on the M3 opening access to Shepperton, Walton and Weybridge to the M25, M3 (both SW and into London) and taking traffic of local routes and M25 J11.

Creating a J1A for the A320, for access to Thorpe Park might have merit...

[Bryn666]

The last thing the south west quadrant of the M25 needs is more people driving. There are too many people in too small a space to make everyone driving a viable option.

Building more junctions won't solve anything there because it will make people who currently don't drive because of the traffic think they're going to get ahead of the queues and fill up the capacity you have created, thus defeating the entire exercise of building a junction to relieve the existing problem.

The Surrey region is Braess' Paradox personified.

[Micro The Maniac]

The Surrey region is Braess' Paradox personified.

The Surrey roads are not fit for purpose.
The Surrey public transport network is not fit for purpose (unless you want to travel into London, and even then...)

Doing nothing is not a viable option

[Bryn666]

The Surrey region is Braess' Paradox personified.

The Surrey roads are not fit for purpose.
The Surrey public transport network is not fit for purpose (unless you want to travel into London, and even then...)

Doing nothing is not a viable option

You'll move more people by investing in public transport networks.

Of course, the Surrey NIMBY doesn't want stuff being built in their area so as far as I am concerned they've made a bed, they should lie in it.

[Chris5156]

The Surrey region is Braess' Paradox personified.

The Surrey roads are not fit for purpose.
The Surrey public transport network is not fit for purpose (unless you want to travel into London, and even then...)

Doing nothing is not a viable option

Agreed on all points.

Unfortunately Surrey is a county with a number of very large and densely developed towns, loosely connected with semi-urban suburbia, housing a vast population, whose residents insist on thinking of it - and running it - as though it’s a tranquil rural landscape dotted with villages.

The result is a sprawling semi-urban region reaching from Camberley and Farnham to Woking, Chertsey and Guildford that has no local road infrastructure to speak of, a skeletal bus service and trains that will only take you to and from London Waterloo, and even then you need to drive to the station. It’s a solid half century of dereliction of transport planning.

No wonder everyone’s on the M3 and M25.

[A320Driver]

Wider benefits to the thousands of residents within that part of Surrey would surely make any scheme worthwhile - it would open up a real link for Shepperton, Walton and Weybridge and drive local economic growth whilst providing a measure to help relieve the M25 J11.

It might be useful to provide a new access point for those towns, but unless the junction was going to serve significant amounts of new housing or commercial developments it won't happen.

I'd also ask whether the problem with M25 J11 is one that will be fixed by another junction elsewhere. IME the worst problem is not the traffic entering or leaving there, but the amount of traffic staying on the M25, which can't fit through the three-lane section under the roundabout without queuing on the approaches for most of the day. A new junction on the M3 won't fix that.

Exactly. Whilst west-facing slips at the B376 could probably be provided fairly easily (there appears to be some land available, they wouldn’t have a strategic function so I can’t see them going ahead and Surrey CC stumping up the cash.

The big problem with M25 J11 is the fact that there is a lane drop, notably so on the southbound carriageway where you have all M25 and most of the M3’s traffic being funnelled from 5 lanes to 3 from J12. The planned smart motorway between J10 and J15 will fix this, providing continuous D4M from J7 to J15 (or J16?).

[Isleworth1961]

I can’t see them going ahead and Surrey CC stumping up the cash.

Most unlikely anyway, as Surrey CC looks set to be disbanded and replaced with possibly three small unitary authorities.

[A320Driver]

I can’t see them going ahead and Surrey CC stumping up the cash.

Most unlikely anyway, as Surrey CC looks set to be disbanded and replaced with possibly three small unitary authorities.

No, the proposal was to disband the district councils and create one unitary authority. Now looks like it may not happen due to a government u-turn! Shame really as it would have saved lots of money and is an idea successfully implemented in other parts of the country eg Cheshire and Cornwall amongst others.

It is truly bizarre that Mole Valley DC sweep the roads but Surrey CC repair them....

Anyway back to the topic.

[Isleworth1961]

No, the proposal was to disband the district councils and create one unitary authority. Now looks like it may not happen due to a government u-turn!

I read that a single unitary authority was what Surrey CC wanted, but also read there were also proposals for three small unitaries instead.

[Micro The Maniac]

No, the proposal was to disband the district councils and create one unitary authority. Now looks like it may not happen due to a government u-turn!

Plan A (drawn up by Surrey CC) was a single unitary Surrey CC - which was roundly rejected by the Borough and District Councils
Plan B (drawn up by the B/DCs) is for three or four unitary Districts

[A320Driver]

I wasn’t aware of a Plan B! It’s a stupid idea anyway; no wonder it was proposed by the B/DCs as otherwise they’d be wound up.

[trickstat]

I can’t see them going ahead and Surrey CC stumping up the cash.

Most unlikely anyway, as Surrey CC looks set to be disbanded and replaced with possibly three small unitary authorities.

No, the proposal was to disband the district councils and create one unitary authority. Now looks like it may not happen due to a government u-turn! Shame really as it would have saved lots of money and is an idea successfully implemented in other parts of the country eg Cheshire and Cornwall amongst others.

It is truly bizarre that Mole Valley DC sweep the roads but Surrey CC repair them....

Anyway back to the topic.

Cheshire is split into (I think) 4 parts while Cornwall has a much smaller population than Surrey. Herts CC has been angling recently to become unitary. I would prefer a 2 or 3 way split.

[Chris Bertram]

Most unlikely anyway, as Surrey CC looks set to be disbanded and replaced with possibly three small unitary authorities.

No, the proposal was to disband the district councils and create one unitary authority. Now looks like it may not happen due to a government u-turn! Shame really as it would have saved lots of money and is an idea successfully implemented in other parts of the country eg Cheshire and Cornwall amongst others.

It is truly bizarre that Mole Valley DC sweep the roads but Surrey CC repair them....

Anyway back to the topic.

Cheshire is split into (I think) 4 parts while Cornwall has a much smaller population than Surrey. Herts CC has been angling recently to become unitary. I would prefer a 2 or 3 way split.

Cheshire is in two parts - Cheshire East, and Cheshire West & Chester.

One thing to note is that some of the councils for the new unitaries are of humongous size - Buckinghamshire will have a council of 147 for a population of about 600,000 (the unitary area does not include MK, which has a council of its own). To put this in perspective, here in Birmingham we had our council *reduced* in size from 120 to 101 for a population of a million or so.

[trickstat]

No, the proposal was to disband the district councils and create one unitary authority. Now looks like it may not happen due to a government u-turn! Shame really as it would have saved lots of money and is an idea successfully implemented in other parts of the country eg Cheshire and Cornwall amongst others.

It is truly bizarre that Mole Valley DC sweep the roads but Surrey CC repair them....

Anyway back to the topic.

Cheshire is split into (I think) 4 parts while Cornwall has a much smaller population than Surrey. Herts CC has been angling recently to become unitary. I would prefer a 2 or 3 way split.

Cheshire is in two parts - Cheshire East, and Cheshire West & Chester.

One thing to note is that some of the councils for the new unitaries are of humongous size - Buckinghamshire will have a council of 147 for a population of about 600,000 (the unitary area does not include MK, which has a council of its own). To put this in perspective, here in Birmingham we had our council *reduced* in size from 120 to 101 for a population of a million or so.

Warrington and Halton were also part of Cheshire CC before 1998. Warrington, of course, was in Lancashire until 1974.

If a unitary authority was created for Surrey or Herts that matched the ratio of Bucks there would be nearly 300 councillors!

[Chris Bertram]

Cheshire is split into (I think) 4 parts while Cornwall has a much smaller population than Surrey. Herts CC has been angling recently to become unitary. I would prefer a 2 or 3 way split.

Cheshire is in two parts - Cheshire East, and Cheshire West & Chester.

One thing to note is that some of the councils for the new unitaries are of humongous size - Buckinghamshire will have a council of 147 for a population of about 600,000 (the unitary area does not include MK, which has a council of its own). To put this in perspective, here in Birmingham we had our council *reduced* in size from 120 to 101 for a population of a million or so.

Warrington and Halton were also part of Cheshire CC before 1998. Warrington, of course, was in Lancashire until 1974.

If a unitary authority was created for Surrey or Herts that matched the ratio of Bucks there would be nearly 300 councillors!

I was thinking of the most recent changes only. Warrington, of course, was traditionally in Lancashire, and only got put into Cheshire because Gtr Manchester and Merseyside got in the way. Halton combines parts of traditional Lancashire (Widnes) and Cheshire (Runcorn).

The new Bucks council, when elected (there are nearly 200 councillors on the interim council), will have three councillors for each of 49 wards. That's a lot of wards, Birmingham had only 40 three-member wards before the recent reform to 1- and 2-member wards, and we elected the council by thirds. I rather doubt that Bucks will be electing that way.

[someone]

Despite being in Cheshire, Halton is also part of the Liverpool City region, which is otherwise made up of all five metropolitan boroughs of the ceremonial county of Merseyside.

But Surrey is more than the "very large and densely developed towns, loosely connected with semi-urban suburbia, housing a vast population," to quote Chris5156. Which is a fair description for the north and west and where it borders London.

But the east and south, the county is very rural. Between Edenbridge and Guildford there is only Dorking and the brief built up section of the A217/A23 corridor of Reigate, Redhill, and Horley.

Given the character of the county, let along the population, it would not make sense to me to have a single council for both the suburban sprawl along the M3 with the quiet A22 and A25 corridors.

[Phil]

Despite being in Cheshire, Halton is also part of the Liverpool City region, which is otherwise made up of all five metropolitan boroughs of the ceremonial county of Merseyside.

Given the character of the county, let along the population, it would not make sense to me to have a single council for both the suburban sprawl along the M3 with the quiet A22 and A25 corridors.

Particularly one with its HQ in a London borough (instead of the county proper) well provided with bus services thanks to TfL.

[Isleworth1961]

Particularly one with its HQ in a London borough (instead of the county proper) well provided with bus services thanks to TfL.

They were planning on moving out of Kingston this year, but that's been put on hold...
Incidentally, Kingston is still in the traditional County of Surrey, just not under Surrey CC control.

[trickstat]

Particularly one with its HQ in a London borough (instead of the county proper) well provided with bus services thanks to TfL.

They were planning on moving out of Kingston this year, but that's been put on hold...
Incidentally, Kingston is still in the traditional County of Surrey, just not under Surrey CC control.

It is indeed, the Surrey county athletics champs are almost always held at Kingston.